Not sure if this angle has been discussed yet. Ammo is legal to buy in California so it's not like this bill's objective was to prevent internet sales of an item that was illegal to purchase in the first place (yet!). I do understand the real intent, but what's to stop California from passing a bill that prevents anything else... books, MP3's, clothing, jewelry, etc. from being purchased through the internet? It may appear to be a stretch... but there are 'gang books' and 'gang music' and 'gang clothes' and 'gang jewelry'. I'm sure many in our legislature can find multiple ways of associating any of those items with gang behavior (he was wearing those 'gang clothes' when he committed the crime - it would never have happened it he couldn't dress like that) and therefore prevent those items from getting to the gang member without a fingerprint. Incrementalism starts somewhere and by definition must continue.

On a side note... I think Arnie really does think this bill will increase sales tax revenue by keeping all ammo purchases in California. I'm sure the majority of ammo purchasers outside the internet forum/shooting range world will never know this bill passed and will just trot on down to their local ammo store and pony-up whatever the price is at time, leave a fingerprint, b*tch a bit about it and never know what hit them.

yellowfin

10-13-2009, 12:21 PM

Generally I don't regard people in the public at large who support anti gun laws as being the type prone to reading much.

bohoki

10-13-2009, 1:00 PM

its more along the lines of 50 pages per month

Blackhawk556

10-13-2009, 1:01 PM

its more along the lines of 50 pages per month

this was removed from the bill so that 50 round thing doesn't apply anymore